Supreme Cmdr

Now that the 1.0.06 patch is out, I'd like to see some feedback about station strengths etc. Note that I was tempted to modify the cloaking, but decided against it. One the MP patch (WIP) is released, cloaking won't be such a big deal.

quote: Originally posted by Duncan Idaho: SC, Please! My information is accurate. I just reinstalled to be sure there isn't some sort of corruption in my files, and just rechecked, when I mouse over the areas on the Earth's moon, (I'm sitting there right now), mousing over one box in one Terran Insurgent area brings up this dialog: Mission 19 (moonp26) It is within the first Insurgent area in the middle row. I did tell you the 'scene' as well, it's one of two marked: SCENE scene_mbase08 I feel bad now, I know I gave accurate information. Perhaps my past remarks deserved the last response. Idaho No. The information was NOT correct. To identify mzones, you use the menu list i.e. zoom-to/mission zone/pick_from_list You said mzone19. So, I looked at zoom-to/mission zone/moonp19 (the CORRECT format) In that mzone, there are NO discrepancies. When moving your most over the GBM map, that is NOT the numbering scheme for them (RTFM). Those on that menu are enumerated based on how they are detected and observed. So, moonp26, CANNOT be mission zone #19. At all. And I just checked moonp26 and didn't notice any buildings upside down. I did notice a pair of TSX2 SAM silos and an ADV SAM which APPEAR to be under the terrain. They are not. If you tilt the camera, or zoom out, the terrain will regenerate accordingly. If you fly down there, you will see that they are NOT under the terrain. At all. Yes, I checked this both in 1.0.05 and 1.0.06

The downloads page has been updated with the links, but you'd have to keep checking until the mirrors themselves have been updated. The VCF has been updated.

I am going to be including the 1.0.05 compliance patch in the 1.0.06 patch. Since it is unsupported, I don't expect anyone to come crying to me if something goes wrong.

quote: Originally posted by Dredd: Why is it you dont get experience for bases blown up with RANDOM? It's sorta annoying. Whats annoying about it? Its not an authorized weapon to begin with. And nobody is going to give you a medal or EPs for wiping out entire civilizations. And if you even KNEW what you were talking about, you'd know that it doesn't just wipe out bases. It wipes out *planets*. [ 02-26-2002, 21:13: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote: Originally posted by Spider-man: thank you for the hard work, SC. FYI. The new, I've been using your mining drone crash saved game to test the 1.0.05 compliance. Not only does it work, the fail safe built into the saved game (which bypasses the corrupted entry I mentioned above) works just fine. So, if you still have that saved game, you can use it with the 1.0.05 compliance patch just fine. It will auto-fix the incorrect entry and allow you to extract the drone just fine. It works here. YMMV

quote: Originally posted by Duncan Idaho: Hope I've helped this time. Idaho You haven't. Never have. Probably never will. While others describe issues with relevant detail, you seem to revel in just typing, rather than getting information out. Mission Zone 19 on the Earth's moon is moonp19. It is within the EarthCom mzone and NOT Insurgent. You didn't say what scene. Of course you wouldn't. THAT would be too easy. I just checked EACH and EVERY mzone and scene on the moon and saw no such problem.

83% (30) voted NO 17% (6) voted YES I will make my decision and excercise veto power later tonite or tomorrow.

I have revised the VCF to indicate how I plan on handling it (no ZIP file required) IF I decide to go this route. Hopefully it is clear now, even for you E5

ouch!! Hang in there man

OK, we all know that most people don't frigging read. And when they DO read, they try very, very hard to ignore EVERYTHING they've read. Here's the deal. The 1.0.06 final patch is ready. Previously, I had opted to include a version of files which allow users to install the defense update (check the VCF) at a later date if they didn't want to invalidate their saved games. However, there are one or two other items which won't be activated (e.g. the personnel filter in the CVD) unless you started a new game. And one which MAY cause problems (the fix related to the incorrect mzone locations). The 1.0.06 (FULL) patch would not be backward compatible with 1.0.05 saved games. However, the 1.0.06 (UPDATE) patch would not include any data files which would invalidate 1.0.05 saved games. Instead, I was planning on adding a separate zip file to this patch which would allow users (especially those who have had a long career in 1.0.05) to apply this update at a later date. The NIGHTMARE I see evolving is a classic case we've seen here. e.g. when someone reports a problem, we have to find out which version he is running. Also, the multiplayer patch is going to have a brand new file format anyway (fleet servers only, of course - since you can't save mp games) and will include all these updated files for clients (or you won't be able to connect). So, while my first impulse is to NOT release two versions, I'd like to see the responses on this subject, before I make a final decision. Bear in mind that, regardless of the outcome, I have veto powers.

quote: Originally posted by Grayfox: get out and start walkin to the next starbase and hope they have one ask nice and they might lend you a hand cart to wheel the thing back to your ship LMAO!!! Just what I was thinking

quote: Originally posted by Blerm: ...and believe me I'm not looking to find things. Don't worry about it, I believe you. The collision detect is probably failing under a circumstance that I have not accounted for yet. We've had similar issues in the past and those were addressed. So, once you can give me a definite pattern, I will investigate.

quote: Originally posted by Roberto: It sounds more like a 'system' problem than a problem with the game. When posting messages about certain problems and CTDs, please try and reproduce the problem in a "reliable" way before posting about it so that others can reproduce your steps and trace the problem. Thanks... Exactly. Which is why we have been deleting posts. Its so frigging annoying when they do that, isn't it?

Thats quite odd. It shouldn't matter whether you ejected first or not. Can you check it again, just to be sure and let me know. Then I'll look into it.

Works fine here on 1.0.05 SP1 and 1.0.06 shot1 shot2 And the next time you (anyone else for that matter) post a link to unsolicited saved games, your posting priviledges will be withdrawn.

LMAO!! Epsilon 5, wait'll you what your favorite sparing partner has gone an' done now. Scroll to the bottom of the page and read the 'review'. Man, that idiot doesn't quit. He must have a special place in his heart for you.

I voted!! I voted!! I vote....oh wait.

quote: Originally posted by KreKol: I don't give up easily....Here are better pics and the save of the game. Ah, much better. Good job!!!

quote: Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Now where's the patch? Hopefully tonite or early tomorrow.

quote: Originally posted by Jeff Lackey: Battlecruiser Millenium - In space, no one can hear you flame. LMAO!! Somehow I doubt it. Then again, old man Jeff's at the helm; and anything can happen. quote: Actually, I just went back and read the review. Man, it's REALLY hard to capture a game like BC in about 500 words. Try it yourself. As a comparison, when I write a review for Computer Games Magazine/Online, a one page review is about 700 words - a typical review for Gamespy is (looking at my SimGolf article...) about 1000 words.hehe, tell me about it. But it depends. I guess CGW figures that there's only so many ways you can say it sux!! and if you can pan a sucky game's reviews over 500 words, well then. Anyway, as far as I know, print mags allocate review space based on the genre and popularity of the title. In fact, I got this first hand from a good contact of mine who is an editor. Recently I had the same discussion with Steve over at CGM. We were discussing the cover for BCM and the general consensus was that it was too much of a niche (read: its not mass market) and would seem foreign on the cover. Niche games don't sell mags. My, how times have changed. IIRC, previous BC titles graced the covers of every magazine, multiple times. And they wonder why we don't develop niche games anymore. There was a time when a game like Destroyer Command or Silent Hunter II, would be front cover. Now all the covers are either RPG, RTS or senseless FPS games. Oh well. [ 02-25-2002, 08:26: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote: Originally posted by Spider-man: thank you for the hard work, SC. Not a problem. This was a tough one and it turned out to be something else. heh.

quote: Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Oh and a side comment : I preferred it when the name was under the avatar... yes I'm picky Thats odd. I didn't change that. Will investigate.

Ah, OK. Yep, you're right there.

quote: Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Makes me think about BCO. Dunno why that would be, since most of it reminds me of every BC title. There's really nothing ground breaking in there; so I'm a tad confused actually. What'd I miss?